What is the better position, age 25, savings vs degree

gadgetmind

I've always known what I wanted to do (age 4 = "be a scientist") but have never really done the whole getting a job thing. Instead I've just somehow found something lucrative that gave me kicks, turned it into a company, and then did the sell, rinse and repeat.

My last hair wash was over a decade ago, but my current role (courtesy of long-lapsed golden handcuffs) seems to keep reinventing itself (CEO keeps buying new companies for me to integrate!) so I'm not getting even a whiff of wanderlust.

SavingFish

I know this is moneysavingexpert, but when it comes to degrees there are other factors to consider as well.

In my late teens I was involved part time in a startup company - as such the 'pay' was largely in shares. Upon finishing school I stopped working and went to university. (It was expected of me.)

As it happened, if I'd carried on working I'm fairly certain I could have retired in my mid-twenties.

My degree, a science subject from a top university, was too academic to be useful in the world of work. I'm sure some employers would be interested - but if I was doing the hiring I would say it counted for pretty much nothing. The more clued up recruiters will be interested in what you have done outside of formal education (in my case the startup company).

So, was I wrong to go down the degree route?

No, I don't think so. At 18 years old I was, quite frankly, a geek with no social skills. At university I made life long friends who really brought me out of myself. The way my life changed is hard to put a price on.

tl;dr After university I was a 'B'. I could have been seriously 'A'. I'm happy with how things turned out, but it depends on so many other factors, as well as on what is important to you.

gadgetmind

SavingFish wrote: »

My degree, a science subject from a top university, was too academic to be useful in the world of work.

Not for employers who need STEM candidates.

The more clued up recruiters will be interested in what you have done outside of formal education (in my case the startup company).

I get pulled into 15 mins of most interviews. I give the five min summary of who we are and then ask the candidate to speak for ten mins on how they got into tech, what they got from uni, what they *real* interests are, and where they want to go.

Their drive is what I need to understand and I'm happy to leave the detail to others.

No, I don't think so. At 18 years old I was, quite frankly, a geek with no social skills.

We employ hundreds of those! Embrace your inner geek (I am one, no surprise) but continue to nuance it.

SavingFish

gadgetmind wrote: »

Not for employers who need STEM candidates.

Fair point, I over-generalized in my post.

Computer science is considered a STEM subject, but innovation can come from anywhere; we've employed some great 'bedroom coders' over the years. Few people have a scanning electron microscope in their bedroom though.

gadgetmind wrote: »

I get pulled into 15 mins of most interviews. I give the five min summary of who we are and then ask the candidate to speak for ten mins on how they got into tech, what they got from uni, what they *real* interests are, and where they want to go.

Their drive is what I need to understand and I'm happy to leave the detail to others.

I agree, drive is very important, and that's one of the reasons to look for people who can demonstrate an interest in their subject outside of just studying to pass their finals. Coursework and dissertations can be more informative, as can postgraduate work.

gadgetmind wrote: »

We employ hundreds of those! Embrace your inner geek (I am one, no surprise) but continue to nuance it.

Oh I'm still a geek - not ashamed of that at all - but now I'm a geek who managed to get married and have kids. Whilst I can't say what would have happened if I hadn't gone to university, I think it worked out pretty well.

chucknorris

berbastrike wrote: »

What is the better position to be in.

A. £250k saved, no debt, no job or degree.

B. £0 saved, have a degree, earning £25k per year.

Obviously A. But why is 'A' supposed to be a viable alternative to 'B'? Are you saying that it is normal for a 16 year old to pass up on A levels then a degree and go straight into work and acquire 250k savings by the time that they are 25? I don't think so!

atush

gadgetmind wrote: »

Trick question as some degrees are a passport to an exciting and rewarding career whereas others a waste of time and money.

Completely agree with this.

And 250K isn't enough to buy a home much less fund a degree on top- so where is this person living?

A would be good, if the person could buy a home outright for under 200K and would fund a degree or a business with the rest.

B is best if the person has a degree in say, medicine so the salary will bump up in a few years time.